Stories of endless,
illicit, and forbidden love are as old as the literary and performing arts
themselves. This theme alone has been the benchmark for some of the most
legendary works of the past. Obviously, we all know the coup de grace
of all tragic love stories, Shakespeare’s ROMEO AND JULIET, but there are
also the Italian adulterers Paolo and Francesca that have steamed up
imaginations for centuries. Even masters like Wagner and Tchaikovsky
have utilized this theme for their own advantages in some of their stirring
orchestral work.

Whether it takes the form
of poems, sonnets, plays, or operas, there is an everlasting and
unmistakable allure to this type of storytelling. Romance, whether it
is heart-rending or humorist, resonates with audiences across the ages.

I guess it comes as no
surprise that we are served up yet another tale of two star crossed
lovers that seemed made for one another, yet can’t find an easy way to be
together. In this case the new film – TRISTAN AND ISOLDE – facilitates, I
guess, the continued yearning of modern day audiences to reach out for this
material. In a way, these age-old archetypes have been done so many
countless times before that I went into this new film with some
reservations. I have nothing against a good, old fashioned love story, per
se, but only as long as the makers have done something fresh and
invigorating with the underlying material. Yes, illicit love seems doomed
from the beginning and often-young lovers that desperately want to be
together can’t due to outside variables beyond their wills. Okay, I know
all of this already. So, does TRISTAN AND ISOLDE offer us anything
more than these standard messages? In short, not really. If
anything, this film demonstrates – in a rather pedestrian and contrived way
– that a love story on this scale done with a paint-by-numbers approach is
actually kind of dull and uninspiring.

Many of you will either
be very familiar or completely ignorant of the actual legend
of Tristan and Isolde. Their story of disaster-prone love is believed to
have originated in Britain in the 12th Century (some historians
believe even earlier) and it does, in this way, predate good ol’ Billy’s
ROMEO AND JULIET (a matter-of-fact point that the filmmakers take great
pains at reinforcing in the film’s trailers). The elements of their tale
are classically born and can see obvious extrapolations into other future
works. The legend involves a set of lovers, both noble born and from
decidedly different cultures and nations. The two, in the legend, seem
destined and damned to an all-consuming, erotically charged, and drugged out
romantic fling (this, of course, being the result of the two drinking a
magic potion).

Their story became so
intoxicating that it spread widely and pervasively and, as an inevitable
result, a tremendous amount of differing versions and permutations of the
tale emerged in Europe through the ages in different languages. Clearly,
the most widely-know versions of the tale – at least to contemporary eyes –
originated from Germany, largely thanks to Gottfried von Strasburg’s epic
romance and Wagner’s dramatic music.

Now, of course, comes
this new film appropriation of the legend, fresh from the school of
historical/action filmmaking in the vein of GLADIATOR,
TROY, and
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
Actually, that comparison is a bit of a misnomer. Ridley Scott does, in
fact, executive produce TRISTAN AND ISOLDE and has been forthcoming with
revealing that this has been a passion project for him since he became a
filmmaker (he originally longed to make the film in the late 70’s, but went
on to do ALIEN instead in 1979 and the rest is cinematic history). He opted
for a producing credit and gave Kevin Reynolds the job of helming the film.

Reynolds’ work has been a mixed bag, from the unsuccessful WATERWORLD, to
the laughably atrocious RAPI NUI, to the poorly executed ROBIN HOOD
(showcasing the worst miscasting ever with Kevin Costner as the
swashbuckling hero) to good, solid films like the recent COUNT OF MONTE
CRISTO. Despite his dubious career, Reynolds does have ability behind the
camera and even in his weaker films he gives the proceedings a darker,
dimmer, grungier atmosphere (largely as the scenery would have been like).

Unfortunately, without
Scott directing the project, TRISTAN AND ISOLDE has languished on the
shelves at 20th Century Fox for nearly a year know, only finally
to have been ordained unworthy enough to be dropped in the usually mediocre
waters of a January release (let’s face it, how many great films ever see
the light of day during this time of year?). Is the film worthy of
such a scheduled release time? Yes and no. It certainly is not a
second-rate film going experience, nor is it unpolished and incompetently
directed. The film has lofty ambitions, to be sure, of being a hybrid piece
of cinema. It desires to be a big, bold, expansive epic action film like so
many that Scott has directed in the past. It also wants to be a tale of
class and social struggles during the times when nations were engulfed
in a seesaw struggle for both peace and autonomy. Finally, TRISTAN AND
ISOLDE – at face value – really wants to be a soulful and heart wrenching
narrative of doomed love. There are strong themes here that could have been
made into a much more powerful and absorbing work. Unfortunately, TRISTAN
AND ISOLDE lacks passion, scope, scale, and personas to truly root for. The
ingredients are here for the film, but Reynolds and company misses the mark
on execution.

Interestingly, the film
decided to forgo the more obvious magical and mystical sorcery elements of
the legend, much like how other films like TROY andKING ARTHUR
did. I believe this to be a mixed
blessing for the film. I can see how the film wanted to ground itself more
in a reality and needed a less contrived way for the lovers to fall for one
another (is it not more inherently satisfying for two young souls to simply
fall for one another because they love each other and not as the
result of some magic brew, as in the legend?). However much Reynolds and
the performers aim for veracity in the story and presentation, it’s all for
not when you care very little for the lovers and the plight there are in.
Rule#1 of pictures about tragic love: make us give a damn about the
lovers. It makes it so much easier for our buy in.

TRISTAN AND ISOLDE takes
elements from the legend – that of a Briton (Tristan, played by James
Franco) and an Irish princess (Isolde, played by the gorgeous Sophia
Myles). The film begins shortly after the Roman Empire has collapsed, circa
7th Century. Ireland has taken over the British Empire who seems
keener of arguing with one another than to work together in a unilateral
front to achieve both nationhood and a will to defend themselves against
enemies. Rufus Sewell (always completely dependable in these type of
films) plays Lord Marke who appears to be on a course for being King of his
people. Tristan, who Lord Marke has taken as a surrogate son after his
family fell before his eyes a decade earlier, leads Marke’s men against the
attacks of the minions of King Donnchadh (David O-Hara), who plunge into
Cornwall demanding tribute.

Tristan, despite having a
animalistic intensity on the battlefield, apparently dies in combat and his
body floats to sea in his funeral coffin/boat. Conveniently (actually,
remarkably convenient would be better) he winds up on the shores of
Ireland and into the hands of Isolde, the daughter of King Donnchadh (again,
convenient). Isolde is a kind, caring lass and she nurses Tristan
back to health (for a princess, she an incredibly adept nurse).
Obviously, I do not need to tell you that both fall in love, but they seem
to do so very, very fast. Why and how? Maybe because Isolde
likes how Tristan looks without his shirt on as he bathes in the shallow
waters of the seashore. Maybe Tristan falls for Isolde because she’s a
babe, not to mention that – at one point – she stripes naked to provide his
then hypothermia-induced body with some much needed heat. I dunno, the
relationship in the film seems more lustful that one of love, but
never mind.

I do not think that I am
spoiling anything for you by saying that disaster soon strike the lovers.
At one point in the film when the hapless Tristan thinks he has won the hand
of Isolde, he has, in fact, won it for his Lord, Marke (this is not
spoiler territory, it’s shown in the trailers). Now, Tristan must face a
situation that only a soap opera would have the legs to endure. How can
he love a woman when that same woman is now the possession of his Lord, the
same man who essentially saved his life and gave him a life to live?
Oh, and how can Isolde sleep with a man she does not love when her
beloved Tristan lurks around at ever corner, haunting her heart? And,
if this was all not bad enough, how can the two become a spiritual one
when the possibility of such a union could upset a balance in their world
and cause unrelenting hostilities and bloodshed? I only wish my life
was as complicated.

TRISTAN AND ISODLE nearly
capsizes largely because of one needlessly frustrating aspect – the relationship between the two lovers themselves. Their story
needed more patience and build-up and a higher level of feverous intensity.
They are simply too rushed into love for it to be acceptable and
believable. Not only that, but why do they really love one another
in the first place when it seems doomed for failure? What does a spirited
and likeable lady like Isolde see in Tristan?

Sophia Myles is appealing
and plucky as the troubled Isolde, and she is such a kind person that it’s
no wonder why Tristan might fall for her. As for Tristan himself?
He’s such a pretentious, sullen, moody, and monosyllabic bore and he his
played in a performance that utterly lacks charm and or a hint of whimsy by James Franco. He
gives the kind of stiff, soft-spoken (nearly to the point of being
unintelligible), and inexpressive performance that Marlon Brando use to
phone in on his worst days during the tail end of his career. Franco is an
interesting actor that I admire (he was nearly flawless playing James Dean
in the Made-For-Television film of the cinematic icon), but here it’s like
all of his charismatic juices have been vacuumed away from him. He personifies
Tristan as such a brooding, angry, icy, and somewhat disturbed soul that I
kept wondering why the h-e-double hockey sticks Isolde wanted him in the
first place.

One of the two saving
graces of the film are in the production design. Reynolds sort of grimes up
the film to good effect. This is not a bright, colourful, and exuberant
love story. Reynolds grounds the film viscerally with a level of subtle
period detail. The fact that he does not achieve a sense of majestic scope
and range with the battle scenes is kind of redundant (a film with a low
budget like this one is not going to be another GLADIATOR, folks, nor is it
supposed to be). The action scenes are small in stature, but get the job
done economically and expeditiously. However, fans of Scott's other
spectacles may come out of this film a bit underwhelmed.

The other saving grace of
the film is in the implementation of one key character. The most
intriguing role in the film that I did admire was that of Lord Marke.
Sewell has the most thankless job in the film in the sense that he has to
play a character that is set up to be a despicable, vile, and evil
antagonist to Tristan and Isolde when he is, in fact, kind of sympathetic.
Sewell has made a career out of playing unrelentingly repugnant villains
(like in the recent THE LEGEND OF ZORRO
and other films like A KNIGHT’S TALE). It’s kind of startling how noble and
decent his Lord Marke is, even when he discovers the secret of the love
affair. He is not a cruel figure that forces himself on Isolde. He seems
like a kind and pleasant suitor to her that really wants her to love him.
There is a nice, observably subtlety to Sewell’s performance where he does
not violently force Isolde into appreciating him. He’s patient and tries to gently
foster a love between the two. When he confronts the two lovers about their
affair, he does so as any normal man that has realized his wife has cheated
on him. He does not punish them; he wants sincere explanations from
them. He’s a wonderfully layered and nuanced character that simply deserved
to be in a better film.

Yet, the film's modest
and decent production values and one fascinating character ultimately can't
save it. TRISTAN AND ISOLDE seems to be the victim of yet another
effort by the studios to make a sanitized, PG-13 film targeted at a youth
market. The fundamental motifs of the film seem to demand something more
sexually charged and energized (imagine what a Bernardo Bertolucci could
have done with this film?) and the battle scenes – albeit well realized
– do seem rather bloodless in hindsight. All of this - combined with the two leads
that fail to create a reasonable spark and chemistry between the two of them
and a performance by Franco that’s downright miserable - makes TRISTAN AND ISOLDE an impassive and indolent tale of love. A story that has achieved
the legendary status like this one has through the centuries deserved a
larger than life, mythic gravitas. Instead, the film is nothing more than
an uninspired Harlequin romance in medieval period dress. Someone
forgot to create the much-needed spark to ignite the fire of this film's
story. Without heat, TRISTAN AND ISOLDE burns out far too quickly.